[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote On 01/31/07 16:44,:
I think that would be a bad idea too. I think the only way it could
work would be for all CDDL code to be dual-licensed. If you allowed
just CDDL-only code in or just GPLv3-only code in, then you could easily
find yourself having to pick and choose pieces and then ending up with a
combination that wouldn't work. It's not practical.
I think this is an unfortunate turn of phrase; not only does all CDDL
code needs to be dual licensed, but also all GPLv3 code allowed in.
(Except when imported from other sources as mere aggregation)
That's why a dual-license. You could continue to take OpenSolaris under
the CDDL license. Dual-license means you get to pick how you take it.
Is it possible to dual license code with the provision that neither
license can be ripped off?
This is a key point I'd like to better understand. I know we need the
final v3 to flush out the conversation for OpenSolaris, but do we need
the final v3 to explore this specific issue generally? I've never
understood the concept of able to choose your license via a dual
licensing plan, but if both are required (can't rip one off) than
developers would have to follow both and both would be compatible, right?
Jim
We've seen examples of *BSD code taken over and redistributed under
the GPL, thus preventing the changes from being used by the original
authors. If we cannot dual license without preventing that, such
dual licensing would have a strong negative impact.
(That's why I think I will oppose the move as my current understanding
is that dual licensing allows you to remove one of the licenses)
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
